That isn't case for iOS. It's having an intuitive interface that works for tablet that was the sticking point before Apple launched their iPhone/iPad/iTouch products. How you can say it treats people like a stupid child? It's simplicity of the interface that allows developers to create the complexity in their apps without sacrificing the general experience.
Android creates too many choices and narrows usability for the general population. Not everyone is an IT expert who can root/flash/upgrade the OS for their own gains (and the under Google's own lack of strategy to keep as many devices up to date for as long as possible).
That's what I meant. The PowerPC/x86 OSX argument is still based on how you implement/support two different types of system. Microsoft introducing the ARM/RT versions of devices has created confusion/
If now, you still see Microsoft struggling to get anyone (even themselves) to build a credible tablet with a desktop OS running for 10 hours straight with a usable light physical presence like the iPad. If you see desktop at the top and mobile at the bottom, Microsoft have done wrong to go from top to middle (adapt their desktop OS). Don't mention the hybrid laptop/tablets running Windows 8. They're non-starters and technical failures from birth.
Every user is different, and I can only speak for myself, but I can feel my IQ drop 10 points every time I use iOS. Once again that seems harsh, but it's the way I feel about it. I fully understand I may be a more technically oriented user than grandma or my 2 year old, no arguments there, but it's just that the interface seems too simplified to the point where you really do have a watered down experience. I could go forever about this, but it's pretty obvious in something like word processing, or graphics work just to name 2 obvious examples. Yes I know supposedly the developer community will eventually catch up with finger driven menus and programs, but IMO I don't think they will ever quite catch up, and even something as simple as a stylus can bridge the gap between old desktop and new tablet paradigms. I'm not saying that's the solution, it's NOT, but it's what we have today.
Yet that watered down experience is just enough for consumers and I don't want to be mistaken for trying to speak for consumers, only myself. The only thing I really don't understand from people who argue against Microsoft is what is a windows tablet missing that an ipad has? Yes I know the elephant in the room is the app store, but that is the reason MS did not just ditch the desktop. I understand not ditching the desktop is seen as an error, but I disagree, this is their strongest selling point by far and their mistake was not calculating either a better transition to Metro, or just re inventing the desktop itself instead of Metro.
Keep in mind that no one is necessarily "struggling to get anyone (even themselves) to build a credible tablet with a desktop OS running for 10 hours straight with a usable light physical presence like the iPad". Microsoft have already done JUST that, there are windows tablets which run for 10+ hours, have the same size, weight and thinness of the ipad, and have a credible mobile OS. Yes Metro is a credible mobile OS, especially after 8.1.
It's funny, I had a perfect example of how using iOS "intuitive and simple" OS screwed me over just earlier tonight. I was over at my nephews and wanted to begin to teach him Scratch/Scratch Jr., which is a programming language meant for very young kids. Sure enough it's in Flash, which Apple said was too complex for people to handle. Thankfully I had my windows tablet with me and was able to get what I wanted accomplished with no issues, certainly none of the crap that's supposed to happen if I run Flash on my tablet, nope it ran smooth as silk and the ipad worked nicely as a coaster for my beer.
In the end though, with MS horribly strategy I see windows tablets as selling in Ultrabook numbers, nowhere near tablets as iOS and android are just too firmly entrenched and MS made some suicidal errors by releasing RT. At least this year that is, it's always possible that MS will come out with a Surface with a Baytrail/Atom processor, Metro will have evolved, and the app store will continue to grow exponentially and MS will continue to market smartly as they have been and next year may be a whole different story. In any case competition is great.
----------
I can agree with it causing confusion, but MS didn't have any other choice in the matter. When Apple nixed PowerPC, the Core2 line had enough processing power to emulate the PPC instruction set under x86 with only a slight hit to performance. This can't be done for x86 applications under ARM. It doesn't have nearly enough processing power to pull it off. And even if it did, the hit to battery life would be so massive, it wouldn't be worth the attempt.
I usually agree with ya Ren, but MS had no reason at all to release RT or to even invent it. MS had the atom processor, which runs windows quite capably, better than RT IMO, as I see RT being pretty laggy overall but Windows on the Atom CPU isn't laggy in the least.
I've said this before, but MS should have released the Surface regular version as an Atom tablet and marketed the crap out of it against the ipad, they could have released the surface pro against it as well for the niche hardcore users, although frankly having used both I find it hard to see what users need the power of the surface Pro for versus the atom tablets. Within that strategy RT would never have existed, it just makes no sense on any level. The only way RT would have ever *maybe* made sense is if MS had an app store which could have competed with Apple's, and we all know they didn't.
Maybe there is a phrase for USB in her language?
